9 ms·

"Commerce Minister Craig Foss said today that following industry consultation he had decided to remove the patentability of software from the Patents Bill, whic

by spodek 14y ago

"Commerce Minister Craig Foss said today that following industry consultation he had decided to remove the patentability of software from the Patents Bill, which is currently before Parliament." If anyone is going to support Free and Open Source Software, it's going to be a guy named Foss. The government asked its citizens their thoughts "a recent poll of more than 1000 Kiwi IT professionals found 94 per cent wanted to see software patents gone." -- As overwhelming as 94% is, I wonder the motivations of the last 6%. The U.S. is in software patents so deep, the only way I can see it changing is watching other countries move faster without the drain on innovation and the need to pay lawyers when you code.

homosaur 14y ago
Probably the last 6% either hold patents or really don't quite get the issue. Lots of folks work in closed source/proprietary only and have no problem with the idea of making everyone license every little thing.
sage_joch 14y ago
This sounds suspiciously like a government that works for its people.
- te_chris 14y ago
  [partisan alert] I wouldn't go too far on that. If you're poor and unemployed here you probably don't feel like the govt. are working for you all that much.
  - lvxn0va 14y ago
    Except when you need to head for the hospital, no?
  - lancewiggs 14y ago
    I'm continuously amazed by all of the major political parties here in New Zealand who keep using logic and facts instead of merely political stances. Our process of making laws is open, listens to the people as well as lobbyists, and yet allows room for policy differences.
    - SeanDav 14y ago
      NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
      - holloway 14y ago
        Great Ape personhood, or at least granting them the right to not have cruel tests done, has been done by several other nations not just New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood I can't remember the exact wording but one provision was about how they couldn't be exported unless it was in their best interests. E.g. you can't sell them a circus overseas in which they would likely receive cruel treatment. So it's not about calling them people, it's about giving them some rights because they have sentience.
        SeanDav 13y ago
        I don't agree with the label, I do agree with the principle. Many animals show signs of sentience and even if they don't, they should not be allowed to undergo cruel testing. To try to only apply this to great apes shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved. It is often human nature to be guilty of anthropomorphizing. The intentions are noble, but the focus is too narrow and the label is quite frankly, ridiculous.
        holloway 13y ago
        The label is a bit weird, I agree, but personhood is an established legal concept with clear interpretations and case law so I just think of it as lawyer speak. Extremely disabled people may lack clear communication and yet a person who makes decisions on their behalf is guided by similar principles. The argument in favour of personhood is that the benefits of that legal history outweigh the superficial qualms by using a slightly wrong title. While other animals have sentience too this is about the thin edge of the wedge, and what's achievable in politics. You go for the creatures that are nearest to human and then increase it as is appropriate. It's important to establish precedent and not to go too far at once or else the first step will fail and politicians won't touch it again for a long time. I see it more as practical political expediency rather than a lack of understanding of how non-apes may be sentient too.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Welfare-society-partisan I guess? The best thing a government can do is not run into debt and avoid charging massive taxes to employees and companies working in their country. That way, business can thrive better and jobs get created in larger number, so it should be a good thing if you are poor and unemployed. Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.
    - nikatwork 14y ago
      Australia is "ridden" with welfare and we're doing just fine economically, thanks. We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        Yeah, lets not forget the huge advantage of natural resources in Australia. Just like Russia can survive on its gaz business alone. ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal, I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.
        alexsb92 14y ago
        Ok, then what would be your response to Canada?
        jebeng 13y ago
        Maple Syrup.
        ekianjo 13y ago
        Growing public debt from one year to another. And quite fast, too. "Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997. The debt then declined to $458 billion by 2008. With the recession, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. November 2012 Canadian debt surpassed the $600 billion mark" Canada certainly look like Maple Red in this map of worldwide public debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg You better check your sources before commenting. Or maybe you are one of those to think that federal debt is not an issue and that you never need to pay it back. You are in for a big surprise.
- rjd 14y ago
  I found this extremely humorous (John Stewart Show on gun violence and politician motives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYbY45rHj8w http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T... @ 2:00 it speaks volumes about US politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYbY45rHj8w#t=121s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T...)
  - narcissus 13y ago
    Off topic, but thanks for that link: while I'm not going to go into the politics, those clips make me want to go back home now, just because of those scenes from Australia...
- loceng 13y ago
  You should get rid of all patents if that's the case. Patents slow down innovation period. And software patents can be non-obvious, just like hardware patents -- software and hardware innovations can be just as equally obvious to anyone who starts to work on a problem.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Don't be fooled - we're selling off our assets as you speak. But hey, we can buy shares in them, so the thing I partly owned I can pay money for and partly own it again.
zem 14y ago
there's even a term for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism
- polemic 14y ago
  Naw.. if you've got a 3 or 4 letter last name and you work in/on/around I.T. you're going to run into an acronym that happens to be your name at some point.
sitharus 14y ago
Craig Foss probably wouldn't understand FOSS if you hit him with it. That's how the SOP got in there in the first place. Alas it's not a case of nominative determinism.
koalaman 14y ago
"The U.S. is in software patents so deep, the only way I can see it changing is watching other countries move faster without the drain on innovation and the need to pay lawyers when you code." Lawyers have a lot of money. Those laws aren't going to change until the role of money in politics changes. I wouldn't hold my breath.
- dsuth 13y ago
  Yeh, because that's worked so well in the US for gun control and health cover! (Referring to the quote)
anoncow 14y ago
>I wonder the motivations of the last 6% People in corporate take pride in IP. The number of patents a team has applied for is a measure of its success. As a proponent of foss, I believe software patents hinder development, because it makes the work I do difficult. But people working in 'corporate' IT see it as a reward for their work. I am sure many of them celebrated the recent World IP day and made plans to apply for more patents.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
loceng 13y ago
Motivations of the last 6% are probably relating to trying to create a business that won't just be copied by someone who has access to resources faster than them, e.g. entrepreneurs and business folk..
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  When you create a business you're not applying for patents, and when you apply for patents you're not creating a business.
  - loceng 13y ago
    Have you tried getting funding before for something that's complex, though then could easily be copied / re-engineered by big companies? Investors will know this and you won't be able to start the business with investors' money in most cases like this.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      And how exactly do patents help you here? Can you provide some examples?

by spodek 14y ago

homosaur 14y ago

Probably the last 6% either hold patents or really don't quite get the issue. Lots of folks work in closed source/proprietary only and have no problem with the idea of making everyone license every little thing.

sage_joch 14y ago

This sounds suspiciously like a government that works for its people.

te_chris 14y ago
[partisan alert] I wouldn't go too far on that. If you're poor and unemployed here you probably don't feel like the govt. are working for you all that much.
- lvxn0va 14y ago
  Except when you need to head for the hospital, no?
- lancewiggs 14y ago
  I'm continuously amazed by all of the major political parties here in New Zealand who keep using logic and facts instead of merely political stances. Our process of making laws is open, listens to the people as well as lobbyists, and yet allows room for policy differences.
  - SeanDav 14y ago
    NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
    - holloway 14y ago
      Great Ape personhood, or at least granting them the right to not have cruel tests done, has been done by several other nations not just New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood I can't remember the exact wording but one provision was about how they couldn't be exported unless it was in their best interests. E.g. you can't sell them a circus overseas in which they would likely receive cruel treatment. So it's not about calling them people, it's about giving them some rights because they have sentience.
      - SeanDav 13y ago
        I don't agree with the label, I do agree with the principle. Many animals show signs of sentience and even if they don't, they should not be allowed to undergo cruel testing. To try to only apply this to great apes shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved. It is often human nature to be guilty of anthropomorphizing. The intentions are noble, but the focus is too narrow and the label is quite frankly, ridiculous.
        holloway 13y ago
        The label is a bit weird, I agree, but personhood is an established legal concept with clear interpretations and case law so I just think of it as lawyer speak. Extremely disabled people may lack clear communication and yet a person who makes decisions on their behalf is guided by similar principles. The argument in favour of personhood is that the benefits of that legal history outweigh the superficial qualms by using a slightly wrong title. While other animals have sentience too this is about the thin edge of the wedge, and what's achievable in politics. You go for the creatures that are nearest to human and then increase it as is appropriate. It's important to establish precedent and not to go too far at once or else the first step will fail and politicians won't touch it again for a long time. I see it more as practical political expediency rather than a lack of understanding of how non-apes may be sentient too.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Welfare-society-partisan I guess? The best thing a government can do is not run into debt and avoid charging massive taxes to employees and companies working in their country. That way, business can thrive better and jobs get created in larger number, so it should be a good thing if you are poor and unemployed. Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.
  - nikatwork 14y ago
    Australia is "ridden" with welfare and we're doing just fine economically, thanks. We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      Yeah, lets not forget the huge advantage of natural resources in Australia. Just like Russia can survive on its gaz business alone. ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal, I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.
      - alexsb92 14y ago
        Ok, then what would be your response to Canada?
        jebeng 13y ago
        Maple Syrup.
        ekianjo 13y ago
        Growing public debt from one year to another. And quite fast, too. "Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997. The debt then declined to $458 billion by 2008. With the recession, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. November 2012 Canadian debt surpassed the $600 billion mark" Canada certainly look like Maple Red in this map of worldwide public debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg You better check your sources before commenting. Or maybe you are one of those to think that federal debt is not an issue and that you never need to pay it back. You are in for a big surprise.
rjd 14y ago
I found this extremely humorous (John Stewart Show on gun violence and politician motives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYbY45rHj8w http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T... @ 2:00 it speaks volumes about US politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYbY45rHj8w#t=121s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T...)
- narcissus 13y ago
  Off topic, but thanks for that link: while I'm not going to go into the politics, those clips make me want to go back home now, just because of those scenes from Australia...
loceng 13y ago
You should get rid of all patents if that's the case. Patents slow down innovation period. And software patents can be non-obvious, just like hardware patents -- software and hardware innovations can be just as equally obvious to anyone who starts to work on a problem.
lostlogin 13y ago
Don't be fooled - we're selling off our assets as you speak. But hey, we can buy shares in them, so the thing I partly owned I can pay money for and partly own it again.

zem 14y ago

there's even a term for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism

polemic 14y ago
Naw.. if you've got a 3 or 4 letter last name and you work in/on/around I.T. you're going to run into an acronym that happens to be your name at some point.

sitharus 14y ago

Craig Foss probably wouldn't understand FOSS if you hit him with it. That's how the SOP got in there in the first place. Alas it's not a case of nominative determinism.

koalaman 14y ago

"The U.S. is in software patents so deep, the only way I can see it changing is watching other countries move faster without the drain on innovation and the need to pay lawyers when you code." Lawyers have a lot of money. Those laws aren't going to change until the role of money in politics changes. I wouldn't hold my breath.

dsuth 13y ago
Yeh, because that's worked so well in the US for gun control and health cover! (Referring to the quote)

anoncow 14y ago

>I wonder the motivations of the last 6% People in corporate take pride in IP. The number of patents a team has applied for is a measure of its success. As a proponent of foss, I believe software patents hinder development, because it makes the work I do difficult. But people working in 'corporate' IT see it as a reward for their work. I am sure many of them celebrated the recent World IP day and made plans to apply for more patents.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

loceng 13y ago

Motivations of the last 6% are probably relating to trying to create a business that won't just be copied by someone who has access to resources faster than them, e.g. entrepreneurs and business folk..

guard-of-terra 13y ago
When you create a business you're not applying for patents, and when you apply for patents you're not creating a business.
- loceng 13y ago
  Have you tried getting funding before for something that's complex, though then could easily be copied / re-engineered by big companies? Investors will know this and you won't be able to start the business with investors' money in most cases like this.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    And how exactly do patents help you here? Can you provide some examples?